I wonder if MS could get more bang for its buck...
on
Botnet Brain Pleads Guilty
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
...by just offering bounties to law enforcement agencies for the arrest and incarceration of guys like this? I mean, they've got cash to burn, and are by all accounts sinking alot into security enhancement, regardless of how effective you think that effort has been. Maybe offering $100k to the individual(s) responsible for getting a conviction would motivate law enforcment officials to devote more energy to these types of crimes. MS could also supply engineers with technical expertise if a smaller agency didn't have the requisite know-how in-house.
First of all, the "not always on" argument only applies if you sometimes use your computer without being connected to the net. I know I never do. So, if I had dial-up, I'd still be connected 100% of the time I was using the computer. When I'm not using it I turn it off.
The chief advantage to dial-up is that when you get infected with something really bad, i.e. something that uses your net connection to attempt to propagate itself to other machines, it's immediately obvious since your connection is so damn slow. "Gee, why did webpages start taking 10 mintes to load instead of 1 minute?" With a broadband connection, the malware's activity can often go unnoticed, and since there's more bandwidth it can potentially wreak havoc on a greater number of other peoples' computers.
Go ahead and get broadband if you want. Just practice safe computing. My general rules of thumb:
1. Keep your OS and apps fully patched at all times.
2. Use a firewall at all times, preferably one that monitors outgoing traffic as well as incoming (e.g. ZoneAlarm).
3. Don't run executables or open documents unless you really trust them.
4. Don't configure your daily-use account to have root (or Administrator) access.
I have broadband, run Windows, don't use a firewall (I'm behind a router), and don't use any anti-virus software, and I've never had any problems.
Do you have a captive audience, e.g. are you developing an in-house app for employees of a company with a fixed browser platform? Or are you developing for random users on the net?
In my experience, hardly anyone uses Win95 anymore. Those with ancient hardware typically run 98SE or NT4. With those folks, imho you're within your rights to expect that they at least update to the latest browser version their OS supports. I'm not sure what that is for 98SE and NT4, but I'm guessing IE 4 or 5.
You might also want to test on Safari, unless you're fine with blowing off OSX users.
Love it or hate it, the article is nevertheless unfair to ID.
1. "intelligent design, which holds that a supreme being rather than evolution is responsible for life's complexities"
This is not an accurate statement. At least, applied to intelligent design in general. The loosest expression of intelligent design doesn't specify that the designer be any sort of "supreme being". He/she/they could simply be an alien civilization more advanced than our own. A designer of that type requires no supernatural framework and rests squarely within the confines of rationalist/materialist cosmology. Also, the wording "is responsible for life's complexities" suggests that intelligent design attributes to the designer sole responsibility. To my knowledge, this is not necessarily true. For instance, the designer could merely have augmented pre-existing natural phenomena.
2. "[proponents of intelligent design] have tried in recent years to promote the idea of a supreme being by discounting science because it can't explain everything in nature."
This is also misleading. Proponents of a religious bent most likely admit the existence of "miracles" which would, by definition, defy scientific explanation, but to my knowledge they don't make that part of their defense of ID. Rather, they make the weaker argument that, for various reasons, "natural, undirected physical processes" are a poor explanation for the complexity of life we currently see. Having called in to question the viability of "natural, undirected processes", they suggest "directed processes" as an alternate explanation. What they typically don't do is attempt to discredit "science" altogether as a means of understanding and describing the natural universe.
I went to an upper-tier state school for undergrad, then entered an upper-tier PhD program immediately afterward. I flaked out after two years and escaped with a M.S. Now I'm working. And yes, some of the time it sucks. You might think success in a PhD program is determined largely by "natural giftedness". In my experience, that's not the case. Natural giftedness is obviously a component, but the students who tend to succeed are typically those who are disciplined enough to "make it happen".
Where did I say (or imply) women are "better" than men? If we assume that the gender gap in undergraduate admissions is not due to overt discrimination against men, then it is most likely due to a difference in the number of qualified applicants. Generally speaking, what two measures do colleges look at when evaluating applicants? Test scores and class rank (i.e. grades). From an examination of test scores, we see that men perform as well (if not better) than women. So then, the likely cause is grades. If we suppose that men, as a group, are aproximately equally as "intelligent" as women, why are their grades not up to par?
My personal theory is that for whatever reasons (be they neurological or environmental) women are (as a group) better suited to jumping through the various hoops high school typically requires. Concentrating. Completing homework assignments that are, most of the time, pretty damn boring. Taking the time to properly prepare for exams. Etc.
I freely admit, though, that some of the above may be colored by my personal experience. I went to a selective high school that focused mainly on math and science. Not to toot my own horn, but I also took the AHSME and scored well enough to progress to the AIME. My SATs were in the high 1500s, and that's before the scoring system was re-centered. And yet, I consistently made worse grades than some of my female classmates, who were, I can honestly say, less naturally gifted than I was. Why? Because they completed every homework assignment and studied adequately for each exam. I, on the other hand, was lucky if I completed half my problem sets, and almost never devoted the time I should have to preparing for exams.
Clearly there are slackers and hard workers among both men and women, but at my school, among those in the top academic tier, females fell into the "hard worker" category almost as a rule. The men were a split. There were some "hard workers" and some "slackers" who only managed to eke their way into that category by virtue of natural giftedness.
I never said the problem wasn't specific to tech fields. The fact that more women are going into undergraduate programs is a well known fact. Apparently, it's true at both ends of the quality spectrum too, given top schools are having to invoke affirmative action-esque policies just to get a student body that's approx. 50% male.
The above does not imply, however, that girls aren't short-changed at the junior high and high school levels. It may be the case that girls and boys are shortchanged, albeit in different ways.
Know why I think more girls are getting into undergrad programs? Based on my own experience in high school, it's because, as a group, they have better study habits and are willing to spend more time doing what it takes to get good marks in high school. Note that I'm not making a value judgement on the relative "worth" of "what it takes to get good marks in high school".
I can't say whether this deficiency among boys has its basis in an underlying neurological difference or whether it's the result of popular culture, but for whatever reason, boys (at all levels of ability) seem to goof off and underachieve to a greater degree than girls.
I'm curious to know whether the gap in CS degrees awarded mirrors the gap in mathematics performance at the high school level. Or, for a more direct comparison, the number of passing grades on the Computer Science Advanced Placement Exam per year awarded to men vs. women. Poor teaching and other college-related factors may be a contributing cause, but I think the bulk of the gender gap is manifested way earlier than the university level.
He gives the system negative marks for pre-installed utilities, not the actual hardware or construction. That's inane. If I buy a pre-built system from a Dell, IBM, etc., I go into the deal with the full realization that I'm probably going to want to reinstall the OS immediately after receiving the machine. Or, if not quite that drastic, at least spend a couple hours uninstalling all the crap they load on there.
I wonder- would the review have been positive if the machine had been ordered with no pre-installed OS (assuming that's possible)?
At the risk of this criticism sounding cliche, Linus is thinking like a developer instead of an end user. The vast majority of end users neither need nor want a desktop environment that is infinitely configurable. They want an interface that's simple, intuitive, and largely the same from one desktop to the next. What's more, wanting that sort of interface doesn't automatically qualify you as an "idiot", as Linus seems to suggest. I say all this with the full recognition that there exists a small subset of power users (of which I'm probably one) which does benefit from extra features and configurability. The challenge to an interface designer, then, is how to satisfy both groups. I'm not convinced that simplicity and intuitiveness must be sacrificed in order to satisfy power users. Linus seems to want to throw the baby out with the bath.
The slashdot coverage makes it seem as if Mirecki resigned his position as a faculty member at the University. He did not. He only resigned as chairman of the Dept. of Religious Studies.
Points of note:
1. This guy isn't a scientist. He's a religious studies professor.
2. He wasn't "depicted as anti-Christian" because of his views. He made explicit derogatory comments towards a large portion of U.S. Christendom.
3. Given that there are Christian adherents even among the extremely well educated, and given that most mainstream Christian clergy obtained a standard, secular undergraduate degree prior to their religious studies, I can't see that "more education" would have much of an effect.
4. Something obscured by Slashdot's coverage of this story is that Mirecki didn't resign his teaching position, he only resigned as Chairman of the Religious Studies Dept. Considering he made direct, disparaging remarks towards millions of Americans' faith, I don't think his resignation as Chairman is unwarranted or unexpected.
Create a bunch of extra accounts before tendering your resignation. When they disable the ones they know about, us the others to continue carrying out your job as if nothing had happened.
Dude, you're just wrong. Talk to any lawyer. "Freedom of speech" is not absolute. As for this whole inalienable/unalienable thing, check your constitution. Unalienable appears nowhere in the original document or in the bill of rights. The only place it appears is the declaration of independence, and the rights referred to are "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
The first amendment reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
It's specifically referring to what Congress can and cannot do.
...against the premise that men and women are "wired" exactly the same. I wonder if this could explain some of the additional variation in male IQ compared to that of females? That is, if you believe Larry Summers.
Sorry, but you're wrong. The first ammendment prohibits the govt. from restricting speech, not private entities. By virtue of the Civil Rights Act, Marquette can't expel students because they're black. By virtue of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Marquette can't expel students because they're disabled. Marquette can, however, expel students for other reasons with relative impunity.
The way this guy might have a case is if he can argue that his matriculation represented a contract between himself and the school, i.e. that as long as he doesn't violate any published code of conduct they're obligated to let him remain a student. If what he wrote on his blog conflicts with the published code of conduct, which he agreed to when he registered for classes, then he doesn't have a leg to stand on.
I don't see this as a problem. Marquette is a private university. Private universities are free to stipulate that their students meet certain idealogical criteria in order to remain students. If a student indicates his blog that he doesn't meet those idealogical criteria, the university should be free to revoke his status as a student. There is no "right to attend Marquette" that's being violated here.
The problem with interpreting the creation story allegorically is that the Old Testament provides seemingly literal genealogies for various figures (including Jesus) tracing their lineage back to Adam. So, it's not simply a matter of interpreting the cration story as allegory. By doing so, one demotes to fiction entire swaths of the Old Testament. For less conservative Christians, including perhaps the Vatican, this isn't a problem. For others, including but not limited to extreme fundamentalists, it is a slightly more disturbing proposition.
...is a series of interviews with users who switched to Linux then subsequently switched back to either Windows or OSX. Or, alternately, users acquainted with Linux from a development or support perspective but who refuse to migrate. I probably fall into the second category, though I've been contemplating giving SuSE 10 a whirl.
Slashdot Mirror
...by just offering bounties to law enforcement agencies for the arrest and incarceration of guys like this? I mean, they've got cash to burn, and are by all accounts sinking alot into security enhancement, regardless of how effective you think that effort has been. Maybe offering $100k to the individual(s) responsible for getting a conviction would motivate law enforcment officials to devote more energy to these types of crimes. MS could also supply engineers with technical expertise if a smaller agency didn't have the requisite know-how in-house.
First of all, the "not always on" argument only applies if you sometimes use your computer without being connected to the net. I know I never do. So, if I had dial-up, I'd still be connected 100% of the time I was using the computer. When I'm not using it I turn it off.
The chief advantage to dial-up is that when you get infected with something really bad, i.e. something that uses your net connection to attempt to propagate itself to other machines, it's immediately obvious since your connection is so damn slow. "Gee, why did webpages start taking 10 mintes to load instead of 1 minute?" With a broadband connection, the malware's activity can often go unnoticed, and since there's more bandwidth it can potentially wreak havoc on a greater number of other peoples' computers.
Go ahead and get broadband if you want. Just practice safe computing. My general rules of thumb:
1. Keep your OS and apps fully patched at all times.
2. Use a firewall at all times, preferably one that monitors outgoing traffic as well as incoming (e.g. ZoneAlarm).
3. Don't run executables or open documents unless you really trust them.
4. Don't configure your daily-use account to have root (or Administrator) access.
I have broadband, run Windows, don't use a firewall (I'm behind a router), and don't use any anti-virus software, and I've never had any problems.
Do you have a captive audience, e.g. are you developing an in-house app for employees of a company with a fixed browser platform? Or are you developing for random users on the net?
In my experience, hardly anyone uses Win95 anymore. Those with ancient hardware typically run 98SE or NT4. With those folks, imho you're within your rights to expect that they at least update to the latest browser version their OS supports. I'm not sure what that is for 98SE and NT4, but I'm guessing IE 4 or 5.
You might also want to test on Safari, unless you're fine with blowing off OSX users.
...Core Duo and Core Solo (?) laptops should beat the pants off previous G4 models.
...of the Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind?
Love it or hate it, the article is nevertheless unfair to ID.
1. "intelligent design, which holds that a supreme being rather than evolution is responsible for life's complexities"
This is not an accurate statement. At least, applied to intelligent design in general. The loosest expression of intelligent design doesn't specify that the designer be any sort of "supreme being". He/she/they could simply be an alien civilization more advanced than our own. A designer of that type requires no supernatural framework and rests squarely within the confines of rationalist/materialist cosmology. Also, the wording "is responsible for life's complexities" suggests that intelligent design attributes to the designer sole responsibility. To my knowledge, this is not necessarily true. For instance, the designer could merely have augmented pre-existing natural phenomena.
2. "[proponents of intelligent design] have tried in recent years to promote the idea of a supreme being by discounting science because it can't explain everything in nature."
This is also misleading. Proponents of a religious bent most likely admit the existence of "miracles" which would, by definition, defy scientific explanation, but to my knowledge they don't make that part of their defense of ID. Rather, they make the weaker argument that, for various reasons, "natural, undirected physical processes" are a poor explanation for the complexity of life we currently see. Having called in to question the viability of "natural, undirected processes", they suggest "directed processes" as an alternate explanation. What they typically don't do is attempt to discredit "science" altogether as a means of understanding and describing the natural universe.
...if he'd told all his friends to mail a bunch of letters right around Dec. 25 in order to bog down the postal service! Denial of Service!
Personally, I think incompetence is vastly more likely.
I went to an upper-tier state school for undergrad, then entered an upper-tier PhD program immediately afterward. I flaked out after two years and escaped with a M.S. Now I'm working. And yes, some of the time it sucks. You might think success in a PhD program is determined largely by "natural giftedness". In my experience, that's not the case. Natural giftedness is obviously a component, but the students who tend to succeed are typically those who are disciplined enough to "make it happen".
Where did I say (or imply) women are "better" than men? If we assume that the gender gap in undergraduate admissions is not due to overt discrimination against men, then it is most likely due to a difference in the number of qualified applicants. Generally speaking, what two measures do colleges look at when evaluating applicants? Test scores and class rank (i.e. grades). From an examination of test scores, we see that men perform as well (if not better) than women. So then, the likely cause is grades. If we suppose that men, as a group, are aproximately equally as "intelligent" as women, why are their grades not up to par?
My personal theory is that for whatever reasons (be they neurological or environmental) women are (as a group) better suited to jumping through the various hoops high school typically requires. Concentrating. Completing homework assignments that are, most of the time, pretty damn boring. Taking the time to properly prepare for exams. Etc.
I freely admit, though, that some of the above may be colored by my personal experience. I went to a selective high school that focused mainly on math and science. Not to toot my own horn, but I also took the AHSME and scored well enough to progress to the AIME. My SATs were in the high 1500s, and that's before the scoring system was re-centered. And yet, I consistently made worse grades than some of my female classmates, who were, I can honestly say, less naturally gifted than I was. Why? Because they completed every homework assignment and studied adequately for each exam. I, on the other hand, was lucky if I completed half my problem sets, and almost never devoted the time I should have to preparing for exams.
Clearly there are slackers and hard workers among both men and women, but at my school, among those in the top academic tier, females fell into the "hard worker" category almost as a rule. The men were a split. There were some "hard workers" and some "slackers" who only managed to eke their way into that category by virtue of natural giftedness.
I never said the problem wasn't specific to tech fields. The fact that more women are going into undergraduate programs is a well known fact. Apparently, it's true at both ends of the quality spectrum too, given top schools are having to invoke affirmative action-esque policies just to get a student body that's approx. 50% male. The above does not imply, however, that girls aren't short-changed at the junior high and high school levels. It may be the case that girls and boys are shortchanged, albeit in different ways. Know why I think more girls are getting into undergrad programs? Based on my own experience in high school, it's because, as a group, they have better study habits and are willing to spend more time doing what it takes to get good marks in high school. Note that I'm not making a value judgement on the relative "worth" of "what it takes to get good marks in high school". I can't say whether this deficiency among boys has its basis in an underlying neurological difference or whether it's the result of popular culture, but for whatever reason, boys (at all levels of ability) seem to goof off and underachieve to a greater degree than girls.
I'm curious to know whether the gap in CS degrees awarded mirrors the gap in mathematics performance at the high school level. Or, for a more direct comparison, the number of passing grades on the Computer Science Advanced Placement Exam per year awarded to men vs. women. Poor teaching and other college-related factors may be a contributing cause, but I think the bulk of the gender gap is manifested way earlier than the university level.
He gives the system negative marks for pre-installed utilities, not the actual hardware or construction. That's inane. If I buy a pre-built system from a Dell, IBM, etc., I go into the deal with the full realization that I'm probably going to want to reinstall the OS immediately after receiving the machine. Or, if not quite that drastic, at least spend a couple hours uninstalling all the crap they load on there. I wonder- would the review have been positive if the machine had been ordered with no pre-installed OS (assuming that's possible)?
At the risk of this criticism sounding cliche, Linus is thinking like a developer instead of an end user. The vast majority of end users neither need nor want a desktop environment that is infinitely configurable. They want an interface that's simple, intuitive, and largely the same from one desktop to the next. What's more, wanting that sort of interface doesn't automatically qualify you as an "idiot", as Linus seems to suggest. I say all this with the full recognition that there exists a small subset of power users (of which I'm probably one) which does benefit from extra features and configurability. The challenge to an interface designer, then, is how to satisfy both groups. I'm not convinced that simplicity and intuitiveness must be sacrificed in order to satisfy power users. Linus seems to want to throw the baby out with the bath.
The slashdot coverage makes it seem as if Mirecki resigned his position as a faculty member at the University. He did not. He only resigned as chairman of the Dept. of Religious Studies.
Points of note: 1. This guy isn't a scientist. He's a religious studies professor. 2. He wasn't "depicted as anti-Christian" because of his views. He made explicit derogatory comments towards a large portion of U.S. Christendom. 3. Given that there are Christian adherents even among the extremely well educated, and given that most mainstream Christian clergy obtained a standard, secular undergraduate degree prior to their religious studies, I can't see that "more education" would have much of an effect. 4. Something obscured by Slashdot's coverage of this story is that Mirecki didn't resign his teaching position, he only resigned as Chairman of the Religious Studies Dept. Considering he made direct, disparaging remarks towards millions of Americans' faith, I don't think his resignation as Chairman is unwarranted or unexpected.
Create a bunch of extra accounts before tendering your resignation. When they disable the ones they know about, us the others to continue carrying out your job as if nothing had happened.
Dude, you're just wrong. Talk to any lawyer. "Freedom of speech" is not absolute. As for this whole inalienable/unalienable thing, check your constitution. Unalienable appears nowhere in the original document or in the bill of rights. The only place it appears is the declaration of independence, and the rights referred to are "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". The first amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It's specifically referring to what Congress can and cannot do.
...against the premise that men and women are "wired" exactly the same. I wonder if this could explain some of the additional variation in male IQ compared to that of females? That is, if you believe Larry Summers.
Sorry, but you're wrong. The first ammendment prohibits the govt. from restricting speech, not private entities. By virtue of the Civil Rights Act, Marquette can't expel students because they're black. By virtue of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Marquette can't expel students because they're disabled. Marquette can, however, expel students for other reasons with relative impunity. The way this guy might have a case is if he can argue that his matriculation represented a contract between himself and the school, i.e. that as long as he doesn't violate any published code of conduct they're obligated to let him remain a student. If what he wrote on his blog conflicts with the published code of conduct, which he agreed to when he registered for classes, then he doesn't have a leg to stand on.
I don't see this as a problem. Marquette is a private university. Private universities are free to stipulate that their students meet certain idealogical criteria in order to remain students. If a student indicates his blog that he doesn't meet those idealogical criteria, the university should be free to revoke his status as a student. There is no "right to attend Marquette" that's being violated here.
The problem with interpreting the creation story allegorically is that the Old Testament provides seemingly literal genealogies for various figures (including Jesus) tracing their lineage back to Adam. So, it's not simply a matter of interpreting the cration story as allegory. By doing so, one demotes to fiction entire swaths of the Old Testament. For less conservative Christians, including perhaps the Vatican, this isn't a problem. For others, including but not limited to extreme fundamentalists, it is a slightly more disturbing proposition.
...is a series of interviews with users who switched to Linux then subsequently switched back to either Windows or OSX. Or, alternately, users acquainted with Linux from a development or support perspective but who refuse to migrate. I probably fall into the second category, though I've been contemplating giving SuSE 10 a whirl.